Ovarian Cancer: Screening and imaging diagnosis
Keywords:
Ovarian cancer, screening, diagnosis, ultrasound, CT-Scan.Abstract
Ovarian cancer is the gynecological malignancy with the worst prognosis. Due to the silent course of the disease the diagnosis is made mainly in advanced stages. The literature reviewed showed that the therapeutic advances have not shown any major improvement in patient´s survival with ovarian cancer, therefore there is a constant research for a technique (or a set of them) that allows a proper screening and early detection of the disease. However, a cost effective method has not been found for screening, therefore it is not recommended for general population and it is reserved for specific cases, such as women with family history of ovarian cancer and with hereditary syndromes. This review also includes information about the different imaging techniques available not only for the study and characterization of neoplasms, but also for staging and prognosis of ovarian cancer. The ultrasound proved to be the best option for the initial approach of adnexal masses, however it has shown to be inferior for staging than CT-Scan and MRI.
References
2. Doubeni. Diagnosis and Management of Ovarian Cancer. AAFP. 2016; 93(11):937-944.
3. Forstner R, Meissnitzer M, Cunha T. Update on Imaging of Ovarian Cancer. Current Radiology Reports. 2016;4(6).
4. Javadi S, Ganeshan D, Qayyum A, Iyer R, Bhosale P. Ovarian Cancer, the Revised FIGO Staging System, and the Role of Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2016;206(6):1351-1360.
5. Clarke-Pearson D. Screening for Ovarian Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;361(2):170-177.
6. Jacobs I. Genetic, Biochemical, and Multimodal Approaches to Screening for Ovarian Cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 1994;55(3):s22-s27.
7. Rosenthal A, Menon U, Jacobs I. Screening for Ovarian Cancer. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006;49(3):433-447.
8. Moore R, MacLaughlan S, Bast R. Current state of biomarker development for clinical application in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2010;116(2):240-245.
9.Carlson K. Screening for Ovarian Cancer. UptoDate. 2019.https://www.uptodate.com/contents/screening-for-ovariancancer?search=ovarian%20cancer%20screening&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~44&usage_type=default&display_rank=1#H16
10. Skates S, Pauler D, Jacobs I. Screening Based on the Risk of Cancer Calculation From Bayesian Hierarchical Changepoint and Mixture Models of Longitudinal Markers. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2001;96(454):429-439.
11. Skates S. Calculation of the Risk of Ovarian Cancer From Serial CA-125 Values for Preclinical Detection in Postmenopausal Women. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003;21(90100):206s-2210.
12. Andersen M, Goff B, Lowe K, Scholler N, Bergan L, Dresher c et al. Combining a symptoms index with CA 125 to improve detection of ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2008;113(3):484-489.
13. Jayson G, Kohn E, Kitchener H, Ledermann J. Ovarian cancer. The Lancet. 2014;384(9951):1376–1388.
14. Hampel H. Referral for cancer genetics consultation: a review and compilation of risk assessment criteria. Journal of Medical Genetics. 2004;41(2):81-91.
15. US Preventive Task Force. Screening for Ovarian Cancer US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;319(12):588-594.
16. Moyer, V. A. Screening for Ovarian Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012; (157):900-904.
17. Suppiah S. The Past, Present and Future of Diagnostic Imaging in Ovarian Cancer. Ovarian Cancer - From Pathogenesis to Treatment. 1st ed. Omer Devaja; 2018. p. 175-195.
18. Togashi K. Ovarian cancer: the clinical role of US, CT, and MRI. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(S06):L87–L104.
19. Mohaghegh P, Rockall A. Imaging Strategy for Early Ovarian Cancer: Characterization of Adnexal Masses with Conventional and Advanced Imaging Techniques. RadioGraphics. 2012;32(6):1751–1773.
20.Kaijser J, Bourne T, De Rijdt S, Van Holsbeke C, Sayasneh A, Valentin L et al. Key findings from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) study: an approach to the optimal ultrasound based characterisation of adnexal pathology. AJUM. 2012;15:82-86.
21. Shetty J, Saradha A, Pandey D, Bhat R, Kumar P, Bharatnur S. IOTA Simple Ultrasound Rules for Triage of Adnexal Mass: Experience from South India. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 2019;69(4):356–362.
22. Javadi S, Ganeshan D, Qayyum A, Iyer R, Bhosale P. Ovarian Cancer, the Revised FIGO Staging System, and the Role of Imaging. AJR. 2016;206:1351-1360.
23. Kang S, Reinhold C, Atri M, Benson C, Bhosale P, Jhingran A, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging and Follow-Up of Ovarian Cancer. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2018;15(5):S198-S207.
24. Michielsen K, Dresen R, Vanslembrouck R, De Keyzer F, Amant F, Mussen E et al. Diagnostic value of whole body diffusion-weighted MRI compared to computed tomography for pre-operative assessment of patients suspected for ovarian cancer. European Journal of Cancer. 2017;83:88-98.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The intellectual property of accepted works belongs to their authors, however access to them is totally open and free, so they can be reproduced totally or partially with the only limitation of recognizing the authorship and the source of publication (Revista Medicina Legal de Costa Rica), as long as said exploitation does not have commercial character.
